Abstract

In the 1970s Bernhard Bischoff famously predicted that, thanks to technology, palaeography was on the road to becoming an art of measurement. The journey down this road has not been smooth, however, for several reasons. Although the idea of measurement seems uncontroversial, E.A. Lowe's attempt to measure the number of manuscripts written in half-uncial script shows that the script names that lie at the heart of palaeographical descriptions pose an insuperable problem, whether to man or machine. The reasons for this unsatisfactory system lie in the historical development of the discipline from its invention in the late-17th century. From the first, the names of scripts were used to localise manuscripts in time and place, and the names palaeographers use today are the direct descendants of these early systems. In the mid-20th century palaeographers began to focus on a different way of looking at script by exploring the strokes used to create the letters (ductus). These two approaches have led to a discipline divided between Linnaeans who emphasize taxonomy and Darwinians who emphasize evolution. Most digital palaeography has focused on the first, while the second could offer a richer vein to mine.